Skip to main content
4:10 am
and i think that is what's so exciting. this is the very first time that we have stopped being reactive and are being proactive. -- in teaching people to be more resilient. and that's why her program, our program that she is spearheading, that the chief has been the force behind, i think shows great promise for the future. i wish we could snap our fingers and make everybody more resilience today. it will take some time. >> are you concerned that there may be others out there that have that same impulse to violence you have not found yet? >> i think we always have to be concerned about that. >> i will just add that, you
4:11 am
know, i was at fort bragg when there was a sniper, and i do not think steading that one guy would have allowed us to predict the second guy. -- studying at one guy would have allowed us to predict the second guy. >> thank you so much for your time. you have been very gracious. if you have other questions, feel free to delete -- email them to us. closing words? >> no. always get you in trouble. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [no
4:12 am
4:13 am
4:14 am
4:15 am
4:16 am
>> the hearing will come to order. mr. secretary, thank you so much for taking time to be here with us. i know this is a busy time in every respect. but it's a particularly good moment for us to be thinking about some of the issues in front of this committee that you also deal with. so we are pleased to address today the future of the g20, the imf, the world bank, and america's role in remaking our global financial architecture. it's been almost a decade since the treasury secretary last addressed this committee. and back then, it was to discuss the imf and the asian financial crisis. while those events unfolded far from our shores in many ways,
4:17 am
america has been ground zero or financial crisis today that nearly resulted in global economic collapse. we're not out of the woods yet, but it's not too soon to start rebuilding and rethinking our international financial institutions. the global economy is changed dramatically, weekly amah and profoundly. twenty years ago, worldwide capital flows were less than 20% of what they are today. ten years ago much of asia was an economic disarray. today the old order has been shaken up by new realities emerging powers, and entirely new financial entities. increasingly, the economic policies of any single nation, it no matter how powerful, are inadequate to meet the demands of the world with both risk and capital move globally. alongside our financial challenge, we're pursuing new development priorities such as
4:18 am
mitigation and adaptation to climate change, protecting food supplies, power and women, all of which we increasingly view as fundamental to future security and stability. we need institutions that are designed to equip to thrive in this environment. organizations with stronger multilateral leverageempowered to attack the monetary system. banks with priorities consistent to the continuing goal of ending poverty. when president obama and announced from pittsburgh that the g20 would replace the g-8, singapore and prime minister called it a -- but the post world war ii had come to an end. and indeed i think that this transformation from g-8, from
4:19 am
g7, g-8 and then g7 with the various plus is ultimately to g20 is a stark acknowledgment of a fundamental transformation that has taken place in the use of power and in the global decision-making process. it's certainly true that the rise of the so-called great countries, brazil, russia, india, and china represents a global economic shift. twenty years ago some of the president's most important local financial trip would have been to europe. today it is beijing. really the developing world needs a legitimate seat at the table so that all of us can better address shared challenges. we party begun this process through recognizing g20 as the premier economic coordinating forum. and it has made encouraging progress since. a year ago, at the height of the
4:20 am
crisis, it convened for the first time at the leaders level and it launched the largest and most coordinated fiscal and monetary stimulus ever undertaken. my senate colleagues and i worked to make good on our g20 committee last spring, to dramatically increase the imf's lending capacity to detain the crisis. without legislation action, keeping with your request, mr. secretary and the president, the world economy which still is much more precarious place. the international monetary fund and its sister organization the world bank must also evolve to reflect this changed world. after world war ii, a handful of developed countries understood that an international framework was necessary to avoid repeating the chaos of the 19 30's. and so they put one in place. in 2009, the imf and world bank's continued legitimacy and
4:21 am
effectiveness depend on transcending their origins to offer underrepresented countries and increased voice. we need to explore how these changes would affect american interests and how we can lead within these new frameworks. to be sure, the imf and world than to have revolved responding to the end of the gold standard, incorporating the colonized countries around the world and eventually taking on board the countries of eastern europe hear it however, as the rate of global economic change accelerates, we need to ensure that our global economic architecture can keep up. today the world bank and other multilateral development banks are seeking more capital contributions from member states in order to address the current crisis. these institutions have been vital in protecting vulnerable people in countries and supporting development. this committee has a long history of working with them and we should be sensitive to their
4:22 am
requests. but we should also be prudent in our response. capital is flowing back into many emerging markets and the budgets of many donor nations around the world have strained. we need to ask ourselves, do these institutions truly need additional funds now? if so, how much is appropriate? and finally, should new funding be provided temporarily or permanently? any increase in funding must be coupled with the reevaluation to ensure that these institutions are actually fulfilling their mandate to focus on the world poor. our own funds in developing and spending are limited and our focus should not be on the needs of middle income countries. the g20 has singled out climate change and food security as challenges demanding greater attention. and i agree. tanks deciding whether to fund a major energy projects in developing countries,
4:23 am
particularly middle income countries should take care, not to lock them in to a high carbon future that will be costly for all of us. and especially devastating for the world poorest nations. instead, we must help countries to craft well-balanced energy strategies. our efforts to address energy poverty and climate change must not work at cross purposes. that means we must persuade our institutions to focus their investments on building energy efficiency and renewable energy capacity in the short term and carbon capture and other advanced technologies as they too become available. secretary geithner, we know full well the enormous responsibilities that you've taken on at a moment -- just unprecedented strain and transition and we very much appreciate the job you are doing and appreciate you taking time to be with us today to answer
4:24 am
questions and share the committee your thoughts about this new architecture in the new rules the road. we look forward to hearing your thoughts about the g20 and those other issues shortly. senator lugar. >> thank you much research airmen. we think mr. geithner for appearing before a committee today. as we seek to emerge from their worst economic crisis since the great depression, we need to consider how the united states may change this influence, address this national security deficiencies him and provide global leadership in an era when the american economy may not be the overwhelming source of power it once was. increasingly, national influence will be determined by whether the countries can contribute to solving global problems or at lease whether they are making themselves indispensable to other nations. china and other developing economies are demanding a
4:25 am
greater say in the management of the world economy through the g20 and other mechanisms. china's global leverage has increased as it liberally positioned itself as a creditor nation with more than 20% of the world current account balance surplus. we cannot depend invasively on china investing heavily in the united states government that. some thought must be given to how we work with china and other nations to establish a more sensible global balance that depends less on demand by american consumers. the united states in the g20 also must rethink the role of the international financial institutions that provide crisis support and assistance to the developing countries and emerging markets. as one of the largest shareholders in these institutions, the united states joins an opportunity to
4:26 am
influence their policies and pro-grams and to ensure that hundreds of billions of dollars are managed effectively and transparently. the imf, the world bank, the african world bank tom at the asian development bank, european bank for reconstruction and development and the inter-american development bank achieving their missions of fighting poverty, encouraging growth, and promising them promoting democracy. what did the international financial institutions have done differently to help mitigate the current global financial crisis? six years ago i began examination of the multilateral development bank focused on ensuring that their financing reached the intended people and progress. i share his experience on the topic that included examinations of individual projects and policies of the respective
4:27 am
banks. in the months to come, the administration was likely to seek substantial capital increases for the banks, mr. chairman just mentioned. it's important for the success of any request that the administration fully engage congress. the administration 100 billion-dollar loan request for the imf last september came very late in the process of the supplemental appropriation act of 2009. there was no opportunity in the house or the senate for hearings or authorizing legislation, addressing whether the money should have been conditioned on reforms. after the supplemental pay out, the president signed the bill with the statement asserting the administration's discretion to disregard the few provisions added by congress that promoted reform at the imf. the united states has strong national security and
4:28 am
humanitarian interest in alleviating poverty and promoting progress around the world. and that is why the congress regularly supports appropriations for subsidized loan and grant programs through the multilateral development banks. but the american people must have confidence that our funds will be managed effectively, efficiently, and transparently. even our domestic budget and employment situations, makes it all the more critical that we ensure our contributions to promote the united states interests. it also is imperative that our government examine capital increases for each bank as a unique request. each financial institution has its own distinct management challenges. for example, the european bank for development must be accompanied by a much more information concerning whether wealthy resident business entries are benefiting from the
4:29 am
41% of bank funds that flow to that country. similarly, capital increases for the inter-american development bank with address combat the bank is reforming its practices. after its unrealized loss of $1.9 billion in 2008 permits lakewood for folio of cash management. it has been a leader in addressing concerns about corruption and government. among other steps, it regulates of contract in companies that have violated world bank policies. given the linkages between our financial or in that of other countries, we cannot received economic recovery in isolation from the rest of the world. in the face of job losses, evaporation, homelessness, and other outcomes, the fabric of many nations will be tested. we have to expect additional,
4:30 am
political, economic, or national security shop. the global crisis will decrease enthusiasm within the united states@@@ '
4:31 am
this committee has played an indispensable role to strengthen america's leadership in the national financial system. this is one of those moments. as you understand and as he said in your statement, economic policy is central to achieving our national security and foreign policy objectives, our capacity to advance and protect our national security interest depends fundamentally on our economic strength at home. but our economic strength is increasingly dependent on the strength, openness, and stability of the global economy. six years ago the u.s. played a central role in the creation of the international financial institutions of the multilateral trading system. today that system has to be reformed to address the great challenges of our time. and we are now engaged in a process of advancing a set of very forms that will other nice these institutions and arrangements for international economic cooperation. replacing the g20 at the center
4:32 am
of. it was focused on a small number of industrial countries we've made the g20 the premier forum for international cooperation. we are working to strengthen the international financial institutions or they can play a more effective role in promoting our interest in global growth and development. as part of this, we are examining a set of reforms to improve internal governance in the institutions, to provide more focus on core priorities and development, and to strengthen the financial structure of the banks. we're supporting a set of reforms to the government structure of these institutions to increase the rights and responsibilities of our major trading partners and the most populous rapidly growing economies in the world. we're working to create more effective means of cooperation on financial reforms to help prevent future financial crises. this is why we created the financial stability board as a complement to the existing institutions and why we expanded this for them for cooperation include all the g20 countries. these reforms to the
4:33 am
architecture are critical to advancing u.s. interests. and as you see in the g20 they have very broad support internationally. i just want to highlight very quickly, mr. chairman, some of the major pepsodent priorities in the international agenda that we face today come although both of you highlighted all of these. ..
4:34 am
oblix. for our reforms in the u.s. to be effective they must be accompanied by stronger standards globally otherwise risk would move to countries with softer and a weaker regulation. third we are committed to playing a leadership role addressing global development challenges. president obama as proposed support for a major new international initiative to strengthen food security and as a part of this establishing a multilateral food security trust fund at the world bank to increase and improve agricultural assistance to low-income countries central to this would be advancing new strategies for increasing productivity in agriculture through research and development policy reforms and through investment. we have to work to address climate change and we are working in the g20 to do so in a way that will best promote
4:35 am
reforms not just in the major economies but in the major emerging market economies. in this context i appreciate the support of this committee for the comment and funds along with the global environmental facility we hope these funds can be building blocks for leverage in future u.s. climate investments. these are some of the priorities. we are working very hard to try to help rebuild an international consensus around the world and in the united states in support of reforms to open markets for u.s. exports to strengthen the international trading system. all of these require the u.s. to play leading roles but we cannot solve them alone. we've been witnessing this crisis to enact a very powerful, very effective coordinated response to avert the worst financial crisis since the great depression and i believe this extraordinary cooperation makes it more likely we are going to people to advance these longer-term reforms. we are actively engaged now in building a 21st century
4:36 am
architecture that better service future generations. we do this not just out of idealism that because of the pragmatic and realistic calculation of our economic and national security interests are often best served through multilateral cooperation. we look forward to working closely with this committee on these challenges and answering your questions. thank you very much, mr. secretary for a quick and comprehensive summary. let me ask you, one of the things that struck me as i read the leaders' statements coming out of the g20 meeting, and also looking at some of the meetings that have taken place in between that the response to the crisis in terms of the stimulus and the sort of global consensus where you've got to put the stimulus out and do this investing was unique and powerful and it had
4:37 am
its impact. but is it unfair for me to sort of still say that the talk of reform and restructuring still remains perspective in a sense? what i keep seeing in these meetings is we must reform this, got to strengthen that, redo this, but i don't really see that that has yet taken hold, and if so what are we looking at? >> i think that you cannot look at three areas to judge whether this consensus on reform is going to have any attraction over time. you can look at what is happening on the international financial reform debate. you can see it in the government structure of the institutions reforms to the international financial institutions and you can look at it in this broad framework on growth. and if you look at financial reforms for example there is very detailed negotiations going on right now in parallel with
4:38 am
the work of the senate and house on financial reform here on a new global accord on capital standards on how to bring as i said mark oversight to derivatives markets to the credit markets critical to the we systems work today and build a framework for helping manage future financial failures more effectively. on the international financial institutions we've made a lot of progress on the early architecture of reforms in the government structure to give more as i said police and responsibility to the major economies. on the framework for growth you're seeing even as the recovery takes hold countries put in place reforms that are going to make it more likely this recovery is more sustainable over time as more balance so just as an example, use the domestic demand in china, in japan, many of the major emerging markets advancing more rapidly. you see thea lee shape of the recovery reflect this basic pragmatic recognition that if we
4:39 am
save more in the united states demand will have to come from sources elsewhere. so i think what you see in the reform agenda is promising. of course the test will be what countries actually do over time. but i think it is very promising and i think it reflects the basic strategic judgment which i hope you share, which is that you need to move on the reform agenda while the memory of the crisis is still acute. if you wait too long you won't have much support. support will fade. >> i agree completely with that. i'm delighted to hear of those negotiations are making progress. when what you anticipate that you think they would come to fruition and the structure would be laid out? >> on all of these fronts? >> i will give you an example, on a new accord on capital requirements for financial institutions, capital broadly defined more conservative liquidity management constraints on leverage etc. those things which are critical
4:40 am
to financial reforms we set a deadline for agreement internationally by the end of next year and there's very active detailed negotiations going on right now on the details elements of that framework and our hope is we are committed to at least a notional deadline putting in place to years after the initial agreement. >> what we do want financial regulatory reform of next year have an impact on that? >> absolutely. i think we have to be able to set the international agenda on reforms. because we can't have a system without a little playing field and if all we do is raise standards. the rest of the world operates at the standards will be bad for u.s. institution, that force ability to read for us to set the agenda to get the world to come with the higher standards have to show we deliver in the united states. we will have no credibility if we can deliver in the united states, and if the process moves too slowly we will lose momentum and they will be bad for our
4:41 am
interest. >> what i have heard is the reforms with respect to pay are particularly complicated what ever. can you share insight on that? >> this is a terribly important and terribly difficult issue. there's a basic consensus we all share which is incentives in the financial system created by the compensation practices need these institutions more risky. help magnify the vulnerabilities that led to this crisis. and to change that we are trying to do two things. one is to promote legislation that will force companies to submit to their shareholders for a vote how they pay their senior executives. simple principle we think will be very effective. but we don't think that is
4:42 am
enough. we are also proposing. we have seen the fed proposed initial lines of standards that our supervisors set up a broad standards for compensation structure and enforce those standards. we think these are necessary complementary reform. they are not enough on their own but they will help make sure what we do on capitol and leverage will not be undermined by future compensation practices. we are doing all of that across the system and of course as you read we have been very -- worked hard to make sure for those institutions that took assistance from the government ken feinberg as putting in a tough constraints on compensation to make sure the taxpayers money is going to fix those institutions not to reward through excess of pay packages, a set of senior executives. on that basic framework there is very broad support across the major financial institutions -- major financial systems in europe, in the u.k., and that's
4:43 am
important because again without a level playing field these reforms would be ineffective. >> you were just in china. the president i think is spending his last night there now. they have concluded the talks. how would you characterize the economic outcome with respect to our goal versus accomplishment in beijing? >> i think the president made a lot of progress. i think the best test of that is going to be to look at what you're seeing in terms of what china is actually doing in terms of policies to shift sources of future growth away from exports, the kind of heavy intensive, constant growth in the past to realize more on domestic consumption and investment. and that's going to take a lot of time. it's going to take a long period of time and a lot of reform. but the broad strategy of the
4:44 am
reform agenda is very supportive. if you look at the shape of recovery you are seeing very promising early signs of shift. now, china is very important in the united states economically. we want to see more open markets in china. a more level playing field for u.s. companies that compete in china and with china around the world. and it's very important we see financial reforms, broad reforms to the exchange system over time to help reinforce the process toward a more balanced bull recovery. this is not stand issue between china and the united states. important for both of us but the global economy and on those issues, on climate change as we read about on our broad national security priorities in terms of north korea and other areas of the world i think we have a very strong foundation for cooperation. we are not going to agree on everything. our interests are necessarily going to conflict and a future. but our basic -- the basic judgment is we are going to be more effective working through
4:45 am
those problems if we invest early in a strategic relationship where there is a better mutual understanding of our basic interests and we can work more effectively to advance the things we both care so much aboutmáaá# @ ijz comprehensive changes in how countries use energy around the world. not just here of course, and we are behind much of the rest of the world in this, but in the
4:46 am
most populous most rapidly growing economies in the world. the, as you said, the institutions like the world blank nei to be working in support of those reforms. to make sure that growth in those countries is more energy efficient, less energy intensive, less carbon intensive. that means they need to be supporting reforms that encourage that shift in transition. and need to make sure the resources they are putting at work in those countries in support of the islamic or not working against these broader objectives to support the global consensus on addressing climate change. so i think you're right to emphasize it. our judgment is three critical priorities to shape the institutions and we need much more focus on these priorities. they are climate change, the broad green imperatives. it's a hour food security, agriculture development. a classic traditional emphasis on development where we lost focus as a world and we are trying to redress that balance.
4:47 am
and on supporting the basic institutions that are critical to private markets, private lead to some women strategies in these countries. those three priorities need to be the center of what these institutions are doing. and we need to make sure they are doing those not just as the focus but that they are giving them more effectively with the types of governance changes that both of you referred to. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. i appreciate the synched direct answer. senator lugar? >> thank you. secretaries geithner, let me double back to a comment i made in mind opening statement in which i said i'm hopeful that in the months to come the administration will if it seeks substantial increases for the six banks that we have discussed that such requests for the engage the "congressdaily" and without quibbling over the past history although as fairly
4:48 am
recent the problem that i receive is the administration asked for $100 billion for the imf last september for good reasons, which you could elucidate some more. it can lead in the process the supplemental appropriation act now sort of adding insult to injury after the supplemental past and someone gave the president a statement to sign with the bill asserted that the administration discrn that promoted reform at the imf the awareness of sort of a blank slate and we are out of it. this is why your appearance today is very timely. only two months later in the situation, but as we have been discussing today, the united states may or may not seek increases for the banks. but given the portfolio go of six different situations even if we decided not to do so with
4:49 am
some with other sweet mayfield in terms of financial crisis or recovery as one looks at it and we need to do more. my hope is that both the timing of the requests or even if there is a short time frame that you and others that are responsible would approach the chairman and indicate that we don't have much time. you folks have got to have your hearings or deliberations and meet your suggestions. but i think that would be a help your process in terms of the intergovernmental relations on this, knowing as you know, that we are deeply interested in these banks as you are and then finally we bear responsibility for appropriating the money. and that we've really need life goes on even after one appropriation bill by the administration won't be back again for three years or so. but do you have any fault for comment about this process, and
4:50 am
even more importantly about the future? >> senator, let me state clearly absolutely i welcome it personally to consult with the chairman and with you and with the committee. before we get to the point where we are going to formally recommend to the congress a set of broad reforms, any potential increase in resource and these institutions to be and you were very gracious in the way they use it when you said, recognize the process earlier was not ideal. and we had to do, move very, very quickly in the face of a, as you acknowledged enormous delegate situation, and i know it was not ideal. would not want to put you through that again but i want to underscore the actions you made possible were decisive in helping turn confidence. if you look back and look at when confidence and global economic activity, financial markets, trade stop falling off the cliff and started to turn it was around when the will solve
4:51 am
the united states acting forcefully not just to fix recession, the financial crisis, but to put substantial financial force behind these institutions so they could do what they needed to do to address the crisis facing the rest of the world. it was decisive but i agree it was in the ideal way to do things and i personally cannot we will consult closely with you before we get to the point where we want to consider any material changes in the basic financial structure and i completely agree with you, and i will not support -- i would not support a change in the capitol base of these institutions without a fundamental reassessment of the world and without a set of reforms that give us confidence in asking you to use the peers money to support these. and i agree with you, too that we need to look at these institutions individually. they have got different challenges on the management side. they've got different records of using resources while. they've got different challenges , but it's also important to recognize we have
4:52 am
to look at them together. we can't come to you and say we would like you to support this one this year without i think having some sense of a full package will look like and that is what we are trying to take a careful look at now. >> i appreciate that very much. and likewise to the extent we can furnish information even prior to request so that we are all up-to-date on your appraisal of the six and their situations on our efforts in the staff and work in this committee i can recall visiting with the leadership of the american development bank and the problems i discussed and they came to us privately and made a very good statement and then followed through, and so i hesitate even to offer an argument of criticism today also very clearly. it was a rather large loss in
4:53 am
their portfolio and all of this occurred really outside the dialogue we might have had with the administration, with anybody in the treasury, granted much of that occurred in the last administration quite apart from your watch. but i just am grateful for this opportunity and the interrelationship with you and the committee. to work on a different relationship. we are not interviewing the bank presidents while treasury is off somewhere else. >> i would appreciate that. >> let me just ask this, given what we have just indicated some americans what ask do we really need any more of these international development banks. downs with fudgy 20, the interrelationships now which are created, they may be fairly fragile or new or however one must characterize them. are we entering into a new era in terms of international
4:54 am
finance and which these geographical situations make less cents, and if so do other nations see it the same way or as you attended these conferences are they still at the same status quo with regard to the banks however wealthy have been run one way or another and i ask this because a lot of our hearings that i cited were with regard to dams that never got built, roads that never happened, money that this appeared. it gave for the first time the free press of some emerging nations and opportunities to question their leadership as to where is the money. but it also increased questions as to our surveillance of this. our oversight. so, i wonder and the remaining minute that we have here what is your prognosis as the future of the institutions. >> let me just begin by making the basic statement that even if
4:55 am
one believes, as i do, that these institutions are critical to our interest as a country, and even if one is daunted by the challenges you see around the world in terms of poverty development etc., it's not possible i think for us to come to you and ask you to support resource of these institutions without being able to make a very compelling case that those resources will be used effectively and wisely or more effectively than they've been used in the past. so, i deeply understand. it's not enough to assert the world faces enormous challenges and enough to answer to these institutions play a central role. we need to be able to demonstrate that there are a set of reforms in place, not just in the horizon but in place the confidence the resources will be used effectively. it was conventional wisdom i think and this has been troup
4:56 am
over time. if you look back 15 years ago, ten years ago i will say there was a strong view held in many circles that the advent of global finance and growth in private capital flows rendered these institutions irrelevant. and i think one of the tragic things about this crisis, a crisis that in many ways as the chairman said started here it wasn't sold the hour responsibility but we bear some responsibility for this crisis. this crisis caused enormous damage and would have cost much more damage if you didn't have is that institutions like this in place that could respond very quickly to cushion the blow. and i think if you look at, again what is happening on food security and what needs to happen on climate change if you look at what it takes to put in place a basic institution on property rights and contract systems that are necessary for private lead market strategies i've been to see a very important role for these
4:57 am
institutions going forward. but the critical test of course is can we demonstrate that these resources are going to be used carefully and effectively. i think the offer the highest return than we have seen on almost any desolate program in the united states over the last 65 years or so. so i think there is a good case for that continuing it but we have to meet a high bar, haughty and skeptical are, appropriately skeptical are if we come to you again to ask to increase resources for these institutions. >> thank you for that answer and you can tell from the during we are interested in following the nitty gritty of whether it is occurring in each of these six. but without a prejudgment that it should not exist but that we are looking forward to better performance. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator shaheen. >> thank you. mr. secretary, thank you for being here this afternoon. before i get to my question relative to the topic of this hearing you will forgive me since i don't get to see you on a regular basis that i won't raise another issue with you.
4:58 am
and i know as you pointed out we have seen some stability return to the financial markets that we are beginning to see some signs that the u.s. economy is growing. but as you know, jobs and employment continue to be a huge issue. and one of the challenges that i am still hearing from businesses in new hampshire particularly small businesses is that they are still having a very difficult time getting access to credit. so i hear some reports that the administration is working on other ways to help small business with credit and i would just encourage you to continue that effort because it continues to be a very big issue for small business. >> i agree with you. you're right. and we are -- the president proposed three weeks ago convening a whole range of people from the broader financial community, small business community at the treasury tomorrow, karen and i
4:59 am
are doing that to examine a range of additional ideas. even with the broad improvement in access to credit price you have seen across the financial system small businesses still face a very tight credit terms and there is a very strong economic case for trying to make sure that we are trying to help mitigate those financial, the classic credit crunch, though credit would be weaker if we are not successful in trying to mitigate those things and we are working on it. >> thank you. as you pointed out, if we are going to rebalance the world economy that means we are going to have to save more in the consumption demand is going to come from other developing countries and developing parts of the world. i love the xm bank's comment about this that over 90% of markets are outside of the u.s. and and clearly we've got to change that

tv
Prime News
HLN November 18, 2009 4:10am-5:00am EST

News/Business. (CC)

TOPIC FREQUENCY China 13, United States 12, Us 10, U.s. 9, Imf 7, The Imf 3, America 3, Europe 3, Beijing 2, Lugar 2, Administration 1, Let Me State 1, Thea Lee 1, Shaheen 1, Bragg 1, Geithner 1, Mr. Geithner 1, Karen 1, Mayfield 1, Fudgy 1
Network HLN
Duration 00:50:00
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480


disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 6/12/2011
Views
76